Of course I laughed after I heard the US is upset about Syria President Bashar al-Assad ordering his air force to bomb ISIS positions in Iraq. This new development means the US and Syria are on different sides in the latter’s civil war, but are effectively on the same side in Iraq’s civil conflict.

Assuming my earlier post about Iraq’s new civil war is on target, you would have to conclude that we’re either witnessing a stage where the White House is attempting a high-risk gamble, or perhaps our brainiacs in Washington are experiencing a case of strategic confusion.

Follow me for a moment:

The US, with money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, trained Sunni insurgents – inclusive of some jihadist elements – to overthrow Assad, who has blood ties to Shiites.

Iran and Hezbollah – also Shiites – have been supplying Assad with equipment and forces to save his regime.

The US wanted to accelerate the end of Assad’s rule by bombing Syria.

The same Sunni Jihadists are now taking parts of Iraq. As a result, Iran is giving Iraq’s Shia President, Nouri al-Maliki, a helping hand with drones, military equipment and advisors.

The US still refuses to help its puppet (i.e., Maliki), but is warning Syria about bombing the terrorists in Iraq to contain this regional civil war?

I also have to laugh about the US claiming that Assad’s air strikes will only increase sectarian tensions—as if those tensions are not already high, and that the US bears no responsibility for feeding those tensions or for supporting jihadist activity in the region.

This appears nuts.

But I also suspect that the US wants archenemy Iran to spend energy cleaning up the terrorist mess that happens to be a US creation.